The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-29
States Attorney Grinnell Addresses the
Court, Holding that the Petitioners We're
Fairly Tried and Legally Convicted.
Ger. Butler Delivers a Characteristic
Speech in Support of the Petition,
And Says He Thinks Anarchy Preferable to
the Methods by Which the Conviction Of
Spies and His CO. Workers Was Secured.
THE ANARCHIST APPEAL.
Mr.. GrinDell Speaks for the State and Ge
Rutier for the Petitionera.

Mr. Grinneli Speaks for the state and Gen.
Butier for the Petitioners.
WASHINGTON, Oct 2S.-When the United
States Supreme Court convened at noon, to-day,
there not quite as large an attendance OF
members of the bar yesterday. but the seats
provided for spectators were all filled and the
open spaces adjacent to the entrance OF the
courtroom were crowded with people who stood
there patiently until the argument in the An
archist cases concluded. After the usual
ceremony of opening the court the Chief Justice
requested Attorney-general Hunt TO proceed
with his argument. which was interrupted by
the adjournment of the court yesterday after
noon.
Mr.. Hunt said that as he had almost finished
his argument when the hour for adjournment
arrived. he would not speak to-day. but world
give place to his associate, States Attorney
Grinnell.
Mr. Grinnell. addressing tho court. said it
had not been his intention to take part in the
oral argument and that he came here primarily
for the purpose of assisting Mr.. Hunt by means
of his familiarity with the record of this case.
He thought that by the presentation OF the law
and the facts yesterday it was clearly shown
that there was no federal question involved, and
that the court was without Jurisdiction to grant
the writ of error. The assignments OF error in
the lower court and the parts of the record re-
lating to jurors Denker and Sanford, had been
printed and were in the courts hands In all
the twenty eight assignments of error there was
no reference. directly indirectly. to the Con-
stitution Of the United States any OF its
amendments. There were some things, he said.
which were hero generally conceded, and one OF
them was that the Constitution itself
confers no rights which need be here
considered. It is simply q Limitation OF
the rights Of the legislative power in dealing
with the rights Of citizena The Constitution OF
the State of Illinois contains almost all the pro-
visions which are embraced in the Constitution
of the United States. This court had settled, he
believed, tho question of jurisdiction. as far a.
the first ten amendments are concerned, and
also he thought under the fourteenth amend
ment. The only clause of the latter which could
figure here was that mo State shall deprive any
person Of life, liberty property without due
process Of law Whatever affects liberty ard
life is made by this clause affect also property.
If the court has Jurisdiction Of this case under
this provision of the amendment. then every
State question relating to property, such as spe-
cial assessments, the condemnation of property
etc. might De brought to this court for review.
The Chief Justice-Because they take prop
erty without valuation by jury2
Mr. Grim nell-Yes. your honor. in some cases
they do, especially in the matter of drainage,
where the proceedings may be before justcs
of the peace.
Mr.. Grnnell said he thought it to be conceded
that State Legislature had right to prescribe
how many peremptory challenges should Do
allowed in the formation of jury. The COM
mon law of Illinois had been radically changed
in this respect, and both prosecutor and de-
fendant now stood on an equal footing. Each
defendant was entitled to twenty peremptory
challenges and as the eight defendants
in this case acted in concert and
were all consulted, each OF them had
practically one hundred and sixty peremptory
challenges. The State had like number. Tho
defendants exhausted all their one hundred and
sixty peremptory challenges before jury was
obtained and the State availed itself OF its priv
ilege to the extent of ffty-two challenges. He
maintained. however, that no federal question
would be involved. even it the State allowed
only one peremptory challenge to one side and
one hundred and sixty to the other 1t was the
States right. In this case there were nine hum
dred and eiehty0ne men called into tho Jury-oox
and examined insorder to obtain twelve jurors.
No objection raised to any one nt these
twelve jurors. with the single exception OF San
ford. Depker was challenged for cause; after
brief examination the challenge was overruled,
and the defense excepted: but they then pro-
ceeded with q further and more elaborate exami-
nation of him, and it is shown by the record that
after this SCI cond examin alton they desired to
keep him, thct they did keep him, and that they
made no further exception When Denker was
taken the defense had left 142 peremptory chal-
lenges, and they could have used one Of these
challenges TO get rid of him if they had been
very desrous of SO doing. They had forty-three
peremptory challenges left after eleven jurors
had been sworn. These forty-tbree challenges
they frittered away frivolously, foolishly and
ridiculously. for the purpose of taking some
possible advantage Their peremptory chal-
Ienges were then exhausted. and they had to
either take juror show cause why he should
be rejected The examination of Sanford, the
last Juror, clearly demonstrates Mr.. GrinneH
said that the defense were more ready to take
him than the State was. Not single juror was
put upon the defense to exhaust their per-
emptory challenges. Whenever q said
or any one who was present at
the Haymarket meeting. that he
jected for cause. Speaking of the jury as =
whole, Mr.. Grinnell sad Il wish, and am con-
strained to pay one tribute to that jury. It ex-
empfed American citizenship in this country
more than any jury shat was ever looked upon.
1t embraced all walks of life. Three OF them
earned their living by manual work They
them was born on foreign soil. They were not
a class jury. They were honest citizens, with
the solemn duty devolving upon them OF de-
terminiug what should be done with those men.
No Judge could look in the faces OF that jury
without saying. they are intelligent; they repre-
sent American citizenship; they are tit to be
trusted with the rights OF free men udder
our Constitution. There not a capi-
tast on that jury. They were all
commonplace small dealers and intelligent men,"
Mr.. Grinnell said he would challenge anyone to
show that a single member of that jury was not
a competent juror not only under the jury law
OF Illinois, but under the common law. Con
gress" he said. had recognized the right Of
States to make their own jury laws Section
800 of the Revised Statutes provided that 'ju-
rors to serve in the courts Of the United States
in each State, respectively. shall have the same
Qualifications and be entitled to the
same exemptions as Jurors of the highest court
OF law In such State may have and be entitled
to at the time when snch jurors for service in
the courts of the United States summoned"
Almost every State in the North he said, now
has its new jury law, and these laws have been
sustained by the highest State courts.
Proceeding to tho question of unreasonable
search and seizure in Spiess Office he said il did
not strike him as being any part of this
He was not here to offer any apologies for his
own conduct. He then recited at some length